tph wrote:Perhaps the Lord has employed a firm of solicitors who have informed the mainstream media of his intentions to seek damages for anything considered dafamatory.

It could also be that the nature of the alleged offence makes it difficult to report without being prejudicial to the trial.

But they have reported it. It may be defamatory, but it is true, which gives an absolute defence. It may be more defamatory to call him a Lord in the reports, but that is true as well.I suppose one might argue that the nation herself is defamed by one of her peers conducting himself so badly, but if so, she should do something about it.

Neither facts nor lies are in their essence capable of being defamatory. Words and phrases are. A published assertion which damages the claimant's repute is defamatory. It is for a defendant asserting that the allegation is true to prove it. If he succeeds the action fails. If he does not prove it, having chosen this defence, he fails, and, having maintained his assertion is liable to greater damages.

Hairyloon wrote:I suppose one might argue that the nation herself is defamed by one of her peers conducting himself so badly, but if so, she should do something about it.

That is defamatory! He is only alleged to have conducted himself badly.

Ooh, now we are exploring the grey areas: I think that is not defamatory because it is a hypothesis, not an assertion. It was inspired by the charging of a peer, but does not necessarily relate to that peer.Though I would concede that the hypothesis placed within a discussion of the conduct of said peer may sufficiently create the required relationship.